instance of the whig party, he took an active part in the canvass of the state, until the day of the election. He spared no pains to remove the objections of the anti-slavery voters, and of the adopted citizens, to the whig candidate. If strenuous energy and powerful eloquence could have insured success, Henry Clay would have received the vote of New York. But the only result of these efforts was to prevent an increase of the desertion from the whig ranks, which was experienced in 1842.

With his uncompromising hostility to the extension of slavery in the United States, Gov. Seward opposed the annexation of Texas to the last, and condemned the Mexican war, which he had predicted as its consequence. Still, during the continuance of the war, he urgently maintained the duty of supporting the government by liberal appropriations of men and money.

While the Oregon question was pending between the United States and Great Britain, he agreed with John Quincy Adams that our government should give notice to Great Britain of the termination of the joint occupancy of that territory. Notwithstanding all the threats and alarms of war, he exerted his influence with the members of Congress to sustain the administration in the adoption of that measure.

The subject of internal improvements in the state, together with the conflicts of interest about the patronage of the federal government, produced a division as early as 1843 in the ranks of the socalled New York democracy. The rival factions came soon to designate each other as hunkers and barnburners. While each admitted the necessity of some amendments to the constitution, they could not agree on the details. No proposal to that effect, accordingly, could obtain the assent of two successive legislatures, or a two-third vote, which was necessary in the last instance, for submitting a proposition to the people. The barnburners, who sought for more radical reforms than their opponents, were thus led to agitate the call of a convention for the entire revision of the constitution. This measure was discountenanced by leading whigs, who regarded it as revolutionary, and of dangerous tendencies. Gov. Seward took the opposite ground. He argued that such a convention would present an opportunity to the whigs. to take the sense of the people upon the measures proposed by the barnburners against internal improvements. It might also secure the advantage of decentralizing the political power of the

state, by dividing it into single senatorial and assembly districts, and transferring the appointment of all judicial and administrative offices from the governor and legislature to the people, as well as entrusting all matters of local legislation to county boards of supervisors, instead of the legislature at Albany. It would, moreover, permit an attempt to extend the right of suffrage, without a freehold qualification, to the African race. The views of Gov. Seward were generally adopted. The convention was called with great unanimity by all parties. Although the whigs had but a small majority in that body, all the proposed reforms were carried, except the latter. The sceptre which had so long been wielded by the Albany regency was broken, and the concentration of political, judicial, and moneyed power, on which their empire was built, was henceforth impossible.

The recurrence of the presidential election in 1848, found Gov. Seward consenting to the nomination of Gen. Taylor, whom he regarded, at that time, as the only available candidate. He had greater confidence in the success of Gen. Taylor, as his name had been brought before the people, in connexion with the presidency, on account of his brilliant achievements in the Mexican war, to which he was understood to have been opposed. His election, therefore, would serve to rebuke those politicians who had plunged the country in war for selfish purposes, and would thus inculcate lessons of moderation and peace to rulers. Gov. Seward favored his nomination, moreover, because the previous course of the candidate warranted the belief that he would veto no act of Congress establishing governments which excluded slavery in our newlyacquired Mexican territory. With these views, Gov. Seward devoted himself with great energy to the canvass in the states of New York, Pennsylvania, Ohio, and Massachusetts, in behalf of Gen. Taylor, and of such members of Congress as might be relied upon to support his administration and to extend the ordinance of 1787, on the principle of the Wilmot proviso, over the Mexican territories.

The election of Gen. Taylor to the presidency seemed to be a favorable indication for the policy of freedom, that had been so earnestly defended by Gov. Seward. Connected with the return of a whig majority both in the national house of representatives and the legislature of New York, that event was supposed to guaranty the restriction of slavery within its existing boundaries

and the establishment of a free domain along the Gulf of Mexico, and across the continent to the Pacific Ocean. Under these circumstances, Gov. Seward was elected to the Senate of the United States, in place of Hon. John A. Dix, whose term was about to expire. The vote of the legislature, which was given in February, 1849, stood for Gov. Seward, 121, and for all others 30. This was an unusually large majority, there being no serious opposition to his election. He entered the thirty-first Congress, together with thirty-three other whig members, and one democratic member, from the state of New York, who, in accordance with the prevailing sentiment of the state, were all understood to agree with him in the policy of circumscribing the region of slavery.

On arriving at Washington, in February before the commencement of his senatorial term, Gov. Seward found Congress engaged on an amendment to the civil and diplomatic appropriation bill, proposed by Mr. Walker, of which the effect would be to abrogate the laws of Mexico for the prohibition of slavery. This amendment had already passed the Senate, but Gov. Seward, with characteristic energy, exerted himself to secure its defeat in the House. His efforts were successful; the amendment was lost in the house, after a long and excited debate; the senate receded from it, on the last night of the session.

The sagacity of Gen. Taylor, on his accession to office, was signally displayed in his choice of Gov. Seward as one of his most intimate friends and counsellors. Familiar with all the elements of northern society, with every aspect of public opinion, and the feelings and interests of the people-conversant with civil affairs as a jurist and statesman-cherishing a lofty sense of honor and a generous sympathy with popular rights-courteous and tolerant towards his opponents, though rigidly faithful to his convictions— inspired with a glowing sentiment both of patriotism and humanity-and ardently devoted to the support of the federal Union,— he was eminently qualified to promote the welfare of his country in the responsible function of adviser to the president. With a delicate sense of propriety, while thus enjoying the confidence of Gen. Taylor, he declined being placed on any important committee of the Senate, lest it might be supposed, on some occasions, that he acted authoritatively in his behalf. He was unwilling to embarrass the administration by any sectional prejudices

against himself, but quietly to bring the aid of his wisdom and experience to the support of its head.

He concurred with Gen. Taylor in his invitation to California and New Mexico to organize state governments and apply for admission into the Union at the next session of Congress. The suggestion of the President was adopted. As Gov. Seward had anticipated, California appeared by her senators and representatives at the commencement of the congressional session in December, 1849, with a constitution excluding slavery. It was understood that New Mexico was preparing to come with a similar constitution.

To Gov. Seward belongs the authorship of the phrase-the Higher Law-which has acquired a fame that will never die. It was used by him in his speech in the Senate, March 11, 1850, on the admission of California into the Union.

This speech was unanimously acknowledged to be a bold, manly, and profound production. Lucid and consecutive in argument, learned in historical and philosophical illustrations, with a chaste elegance of diction, it was not surpassed for sound statesmanship and an acute exposition of the principles of natural and constitutional law, by any speech delivered in the Senate on the absorbing subject of freedom in the territories.

The enemies of Gov. Seward at once accused him of maintaining the existence of a Higher Law, in opposition to the Constitution, by which the new domain of California was devoted to justice, liberty, and union. But this was a flagrant misrepresentation of his language, which embodied a truth, that none but the grossest materialists and skeptics can call in question. No enlightened ethical philosopher, no man of ordinary religious feeling and conscientiousness will deny that there is a law higher than political constitutions and human legislation, "the law which governs all law-the law of our Creator, the law of humanity, justice, equity, the law of nature and of nations." Nor will it be doubted, that in case of a conflict between divine and human law, we ought to obey God, rather than man." But it was not the purpose of Gov. Seward on that occasion, to repeat a principle so plain as this. The phrase as used by him on the floor of the Senate would hardly seem capable of such misconstruction as has been given to it. We quote his words, precisely as they were spoken:

It is true, indeed, that the national domain is ours. It is true it was acquired by

the valor and with the wealth of the whole nation. But we hold, nevertheless, no arbitrary power over it. We hold no arbitrary authority over anything, whether acquired lawfully or seized by usurpation. The Constitution regulates our stewardship; the Constitution devotes the domain to union, to justice, to defence, to welfare, and to liberty. But there is a Higher Law than the Constitution, which regulates our authority over the domain, and devotes it to the same noble purposes. The territory is a part, no inconsiderable part, of the common heritage of mankind, bestowed upon them by the Creator of the Universe. We are his stewards, and must so discharge our trust as to secure in the highest attainable degree their happiness."

Every intelligent reader will perceive that while Gov. Seward devoutly recognizes the Law of God, and its paramount claims both on individuals and nations, he was far from asserting a contradiction between that law and the American Constitution on the subject in question. On the contrary, he declares that they agree in demanding freedom and justice for the new domain. Can any wise statesman, can any far-seeing patriot, can any friend of human improvement deny the soundness of this position?

But let us not be misunderstood. In vindicating Gov. Seward from the aspersions which were brought upon him by the expression alluded to, it is far from our intention to disclaim for him a belief that the obligation of human laws is founded on their harmony with the principles of eternal justice. He is no adherent of the superficial and wretched philosophy which derives the distinctions of morality from the caprices of opinion. In common with the greatest thinkers of all ages, he traces the obligation of right to the uncreated wisdom of the Deity. With Plato and Cicero, in ancient times, with Bacon, Hooker, and Cudworth, at a later date, he recognizes the bosom of the Deity as the seat and fountain of law-" whose voice is the harmony of the world." This ennobling idea pervades the writings of Gov. Seward,—it is the pivot of his personal character, as well as of his public and legislative career. Among other instances of its operation, we find it in an argument, in 1847, relating to the fugitive slave law of 1793, where he uses the following striking expression: "Congress has no power to inhibit any duty commanded by God on Mount Sinai, or by his Son on the Mount of Olives."*

During the discussion of the "Compromise Bill," Gov. Seward addressed the Senate, July 2, 1850, in a speecht remarkable for the vigor of its dialectics, its comprehensive and sagacious statesSee Forensic Arguments, Parks vs. Van Zandt, Vol. I. † See Vol. I. p. 44-110.